development of expired in 2008 Rollei R3 Super PAN 400

[merkulka]

I've got as a present huge bag of expired in 2008 Rollei R3 Super PAN 400 which was kept in freezer.
Today I've tried to develop first one in a stock D-76 from Kodak - went through internet and find out that it should be 14 minutes development.
As a result I've got absolutely clear film, even without the numbers film name on edges. So, there was a mistake in development process - but what kind of?
I am sure development liquid was ok, cause another films (like agfa apx) developed very well, so the question is:
may be D-76 in not suitable for such an old film? R3 as far as it's different - has shorter expiration time?
What else could it be?
Thanks a lot for the ideas.

 

[removed account4]

hi merkulka

i am guessing you googled the usual suspects

https://www.flickr.com/groups/maco/discuss/72157602708385595/
suggests a pre-soak is critical with this film, did you do that ?

also maybe ... your developer isn't strong enough ( they also suggest a strong developer )
i know the development charts say 14mins but maybe you need to
extend development or use a stronger dilution OR bracket down to iso 25
to see if heavy exposure is also critical.

sorry i am not much help, i have never used this film before ..

good luck !
john

 

[AgX]

Welcome to Apug.



That film does not need a presoak. A presoak is something uncommon over here anyway.

The most likely cause is mixing up fixer and developer baths in sequence.

 

[merkulka]

Yep, of course It was pre-soaked and no, it difficult to mix fixer in developer as they both comes from original bottles with names
But I've got answer to my question after second attempt - by mistake I have developed film that wasn't exposed and
all my Rollei R3 films comes WITHOUT the numbers and any other fabric information on edges.
It means film edges are clean - that is very confusing.

 

[AgX]

What do you mean by "of course it was pre-soaked"?

I did not indicate putting fixer into the developer but erroneously mixing up the baths in their sequence. This is a error that actually happened to others.

 

[removed account4]

hi merkulka

when this film is taken out of a camera does it have the word "exposed" on it somewhere?
it seems very difficult to process film that wasn't exposed
( maybe the tail and head of the film/wrappers look the same ? )

AgX's suggested problem is something that happens to a lot of people ...
fixing first, developing afterwards ... and it gets worse if you are in the dark shuffling sheet film ...

if you expose another roll and it comes out blank again you might post your question about the film
over on the flickr group i linked to, "there" seem to have more people who actually use the film ..

have fun!
john

 

[pentaxuser]

It seems that you are saying that Rollei R3 Super Pan film does not have any manufacturer's edge marking on it so the usual test for fixing before development cannot be applied.

This seems very strange. I had though that all film manufacturers used edge markings. Can anyone else confirm that in the case of Rollei R3 of that vintage, edge markings are not applied?

What other Rollei films, current or former, are missing edge markings?

If this is the case then I wonder why the manufacturer would omit these markings at production?

If this is true then it seems like a major oversight. It would certainly make me think twice about buying Rollei film if this is true

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

The manufacturer of the R3 has the most modern signing equipment.

 

[pentaxuser]

The manufacturer of the R3 has the most modern signing equipment.

So I take this as a Yes and the OP is wrong about there being no edge markings on R3 Super Pan film. If so it sounds like the familiar fixing before developing problem

Thanks

pentaxuser